Wasn’t he, Anders Breivik, a living symbol and hero fighting against the Muslim invasion of his beloved country? Although he was mentally prepared for the likelihood that these police officers would not immediately grasp his motives, he had to give it a try.
At this time during the interrogation, Breivik suggested a bargain. He would trade information on the two remaining cells he had referred to for the cessation of mass Muslim immigration into Norway. Whether he truly believed that any such agreement could be reached is doubtful. It could be that his focus on his mission was waning with the effects of the drugs he had taken that morning to keep him motivated. To bolster his strength against Tombre, he referred constantly to his manifesto. He’d had the entire manuscript saved on a USB thumb drive that he had stuck behind the Knights Templar flag on his combat vest, but now it was gone, lost in the day’s constant action.
Well, he reasoned, there would be days and days ahead when he could prove how important his crusade was to the country. So far, he had done all he could. Learning that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was still alive was disappointing, but now they would know of him and his cause—a cause he would defend until his death.
CHAPTER SEVEN
BREIVIK’S WAR ON ISLAM:
BECOMING ONE WITH HIS IDEOLOGY
Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology. As such, they are the Nazis of our time, not us.
—ANDERS BREIVIK MANIFESTO
Approximately 150,000 out of Norway’s population of five million identify as Muslims, and Islam is the country’s second-largest non-Christian religion. In Book 3 of Breivik’s manifesto, he goes on at length about his frustration with immigration policies, and he ends by saying that Muslims must be driven out of the country—and if that effort fails, then they must be killed.
In an “interview” with himself, a simple question-and-answer session, he writes that his best friend for many years, a Muslim who lived his life in Oslo West, had only limited contact with the Norwegian-Pakistani community. Yet Breivik’s friend refused to be integrated into Norwegian culture. He attended Urdu language classes from early childhood and went to the mosque occasionally after he had turned twelve.
According to Breivik, “He felt really torn between the Norwegian and Pakistani communities. I was wrong assuming that he would chose [sic] to follow my path and the Norwegian way. I understood early that he resented the Norwegian society. Not because he was jealous. After all, he could have conformed if he wanted to. He resented it because it represented the exact opposite of Islamic ways.”
This is not an unusual story. Many Muslims in Norway—or anywhere else, for that matter—don’t accept the culture in their host country. At best, they ignore it. Breivik writes that shortly after he and his friend broke contact, “. . . he started hanging out with his cousin and other Pakistanis. Since then he and his Muslim friends have beaten and harassed several ethnic Norwegians, one of them being my friend, Kristoffer.”
Norway views itself as one of the world’s most tolerant nations, yet it faces the same problems with its immigration policies as other parts of Europe. Siv Jensen, head of the Progress Party, has objected to moves to introduce special measures in order to accommodate Muslims’ religious traditions. These include a Labor Party suggestion (in an attempt to attract more Muslim women to the police force) that officers could wear headscarves with their uniforms.
At a 2009 Progress Party conference, in a BBC, Oslo report by Thomas Buch-Andersen, Jensen said “The reality is that a kind of sneak-Islamization of this society is being allowed. We are going to have to stop this.”
She told the National Post that freedom of religion is good for democracy. “But radical Islam is not religion. It is politics and it poses a danger to the free world and threatens the values that we appreciate so much. You find radical Islam in societies where people have failed to integrate. When you find terrorist cells in the United Kingdom or Germany or Norway, for that matter, it is always for some reason where people are not very well integrated.” Yet Jensen remained frustrated as the Norwegian government did nothing to “crack down” on Norway’s Muslim population.
FAILING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Breivik dealt with the same frustration Jensen verbalizes. He tried to make a difference politically and failed. After attempting to change the status quo, he received no support from his countrymen, not even his own political party. In his self-interview in the manifesto, he asks himself about his views on moderate anti-immigration parties and replies that however noble their motives, they are counterproductive.
“They start out as idealistic but end up diluted and corrupt,” he writes. “They should admit that the democratic struggle to save Europe has been lost, and the only way to proceed is to resist the establishment. Contributing to pacify the people gives them false hope.”
Again, he is referring to his own false hope when he was involved in politics. He doesn’t view himself as a racist; and since he feels that his views are not being listened to, he believes the only way he can express this is through violence. The violence will force people to hear him.
Kaczynski expressed similar frustration. After he had given up on having a social life, his goal was to live in a secluded place outside of society, and he began learning survival skills. He worked odd jobs and received financial support from his family, funds he used to purchase the piece of land in Montana that would be his home and the base for his bombing campaign.
Realizing that it was impossible for him to live completely outside of society, he complained in his journal about watching the wild land around him get destroyed by development and industry. Kaczynski began performing isolated acts of sabotage, initially targeting developments near his cabin.
One particular incident marked him.
“The best place, to me,” he said in an interview with Earth First! Journal, from prison in Colorado in June 1999, “was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It’s kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two days’ hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it. . . . You just can’t imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge.”
From then on, Kaczynski stepped up his campaign of sabotage. Violence, he concluded, was the only solution to what he saw as the problem of industrial civilization. In his interview with Earth First! Journal, he said he’d lost faith in the idea of reform and saw violent collapse as the only way to bring down the techno-industrial system.
“I don’t think it can be done,” he said about reform. “In part because of the human tendency, for most people, there are exceptions, to take the path of least resistance. They’ll take the easy way out, and giving up your car, your television set, your electricity, is not the path of least resistance for most people. As I see it, I don’t think there is any controlled or planned way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses. . . . The big problem is that people don’t believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible. To a large extent, I think the eco-anarchist movement is accomplishing a great deal, but I think they could do it better. . . . The real revolutionaries should separate themselves from the reformers. . . . And I think that it would be good if a conscious effort was being made to get as many people as possible introduced to the wilderness. In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point wh
ere things start to break down. To create a situation where people get uncomfortable enough that they’re going to rebel. So the question is how do you increase those tensions?”
Conversely, McVeigh didn’t think he had a choice.
“I didn’t define the rules of engagement in this conflict,” he later said, according to Michel and Herbeck. “The rules, if not written down, are defined by the aggressor. It was brutal, no holds barred. Women and kids were killed at Waco and Ruby Ridge. You put back in [the government’s] faces exactly what they’re giving out.”
Breivik believes his politically correct country labels the political right as “evil fascists, racists, Nazis, and bigots.” And he also believes that the only way to analyze the far right is to detach it from the politically correct narrative.
Again, Breivik emphasizes that he is not a racist and says that he still suffers from two decades of multiculturalist indoctrination.
“Also I am against the Marxist/multiculturalist alliance and the Islamic presence in Europe, so writing about skin color would be counter-productive. However we can’t ignore NS (National Socialists) if we are to make a truthful evaluation. Western nations can never mount a defense against cultural Islamic demographic warfare unless we manage to convert the NS. This is why we must argue against their ideology instead of ignoring them.”
Muslims feel this anger as well. In the same BBC interview, Khalid Mahmood, a Pakistani native and member of the Labor Party, calls Muslims “the Jews of our time.” According to him, “It is not any longer immigrants who are targeted, but simply Muslims. We are portrayed as uncivilized people living double lives—orderly and behaved when in public, but at home fundamentalists suppressing and physically abusing women.”
Most Muslims sense it. Most Norwegians deny it. And other than the Progress Party, few speak their frustrations at trying to blend two cultures that appear as incompatible, on the surface at least, as oil and water. Breivik’s point about the lack of tolerance in this politically correct society of Norway is valid. If one doesn’t agree with the Labor Party and the socially accepted opinion, one is labeled far right and a racist. One is immediately attacked by the group for having a different opinion on these issues. The more one reads the manifesto, the more one questions whether Breivik’s frustration, anger, and ultimate plan for mass murder resulted from hatred toward Islam and multiculturalism, or hatred toward the country where he was raised and the Laws of Jante.
TIPPING THE SCALES
One question in his self-interview asks: “What tipped the scales for you? What single event made you decide you wanted to continue planning and moving on with the assault?”
Breivik replies: “For me, it was my government’s involvement in the attacks on Serbia (NATO bombings in 1999). It was completely unacceptable how the U.S. and Western European regimes bombed our Serbian brothers. All they wanted was to drive Islam out by deporting the Albanian Muslims back to Albania. When the Albanians refused, they didn’t have any choice but to use military force. By disallowing the Serbians the right for self-determination over their sovereign territory they indirectly dug a grave for Europe. A future where several Mini-Pakistans would eventually be created in every Western European capital. This is unacceptable, completely unacceptable.”
It is important to remember that Breivik wanted to sound credible here. As he wrote, he believed people would read his manifesto after he was dead or in prison. He wanted to show them that he was sane and his actions justifiable. It’s highly unlikely that the NATO bombings were the breaking point for Breivik. It is an excuse. The true breaking point was probably after he was rejected in politics, by every group he had tried to join, and he realized he was getting nowhere in Norway. After that, he gave up trying to fit in to society.
He had originally gone into politics, thinking he could still change the system; but after becoming disillusioned, he traveled to Liberia, where he probably heard the inside story from the Serb known as “The Dragon” about why the Serbians were killing the Muslims. He says that something changed in him when he met “The Dragon.” The Serb was supposedly the one who sent Breivik to a founding meeting of the Knights Templar in London.
At that time, Breivik was a pot ready to boil over, and listening to “The Dragon” may have made him believe that the same fight was brewing in Norway. And he was the man to lead the charge. He was quite open to suggestion and might easily have taken on any cause, but this was the one that manifested itself at his most vulnerable moment. He needed to matter. Finally, he felt part of something.
“There have been several issues that have reaffirmed my beliefs since then. Among them: my government’s cowardly handling of the Muhammad Cartoon issue and their decision to award the Nobel peace prize to an Islamic terrorist (Arafat) and appeasers of Islam. There have been tens of other issues. My government and our media capitulated to Islam several years ago, after the Rushdie event. Since then, it has gone downhill. Thousands of Muslims pouring in annually through our Asylum institution, or by family reunification. The situation is just chaotic. These suicidal traitors must be stopped.”
Breivik is referring to editorial cartoons, depicting the prophet Muhammad, cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. Muslim groups in Denmark complained, and the issue eventually led to protests in many countries around the world, which included violent demonstrations in some Islamic countries. Some of the protests escalated into riots that left more than two hundred people dead. As a show of support, Magazinet, a Norwegian publication that has since changed its name to Dagen (The Day), published the cartoons.
Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, a leading member of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s Labor Party, sent an e-mail to the Norwegian embassies, asking them to apologize for printing the cartoons, while keeping it a secret from the Norwegian press. He wrote:
“I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offense by Muslims worldwide. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world. Your faith has the right to be respected by us.
“The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead, they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict.
“Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect, and dialogue are the basic values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.
“Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares. At the same time, our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions.”
The e-mail was meant to be kept from the Norwegian public. According to the Foreign Ministry, “that would look rather stupid in the Norwegian press.”
But it was fine to send it to everyone else. How must the citizens of Norway and Scandinavia have felt when they learned that their governments had apologized—secretly, at that—for caricatures typical of those that Scandinavian newspapers constantly publish about many other political and cultural figures?
Even today, the artists who created the cartoons, along with the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, live in secrecy under police protection. The fatw, or ruling by Muslim leaders sentencing them to death, is still in effect. And with the shooting in Paris that killed almost the entire editorial board of Charlie Hebdo, these fatws are to be taken seriously.
Also living in secret is author Salman Rushdie, in New York. Rushdie’s fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, provoked protests and death
threats from Muslims in several countries. A fatw was issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in 1989, sentencing Rushdie to death (the ruling was lifted in 1998 but revived in September 2012). Direct threats against Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher, William Nygaard, and translator, Kari Risvik, followed, and Nygaard was given police protection for a period of time.
Then, on October 11, 1993, Nygaard was shot three times outside his home in Dagaliveien in Oslo. Nygaard was hospitalized for several months, and he slowly recovered. His alleged Muslim assailant was never prosecuted.
All this was more fuel to people like Fjordman and, in turn, Breivik, who followed Fjordman closely. In one essay, Fjordman quotes linguist Tina Magaard, who believes that Islamic texts encourage violence more than those of other religions.
“. . . there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. [Quoting Magaard:] ‘If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text. . . .’”
This was the Norway in which Breivik lived and tried to make a difference. He describes his political stances of the past as “a complete nut job, due to the fact that I was ignorant about most issues then. But if you actually take the time to study the non-PC (politically correct) documentation available, you cannot avoid making many of the same conclusions I have made today.”
He goes on to explain that “Fighting for your people’s survival, when threatened, is the most logical thing to do. Defending your people and culture from genocide is the most basic and recognized human right and one of few causes actually worth dying for.”
The Mystery of the Lone Wolf Killer Page 13
